1. Title, director and release year? ‘Coal Country,’ directed by Mari-Lynn Evans (2009) 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The film Coal Country gives its viewers a deeper look behind the scenes at the industry, as well as the devotion it has gained from its employees. It’s a toss up between the personal struggle of employees and those living in the towns where mountaintop removal is prominent and destructive/disruptive. Because coal provides American with over half of its current electricity, the movement of switching to renewable resources strikes fear in the companies, as well as their devoted employees because they don’t want to lose their jobs. It’s a dirty business, and they will go down fighting. 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political/legal: - Changes being made to legislation, allowing mining efforts to get away with more than they did before (e.g. Bush revising ‘buffer zone’ rules); shows the power that the companies can have over political leaders, as well as the disregard for policies in place when situations seem difficult and demand is high - Joe Lovett won his case of buffer zone protection at the local level, but was overturned at the state level due to public involvement (arguments of keeping peoples jobs and protecting the industry were what made that decision possible); the clean water buffer, in which ‘fill’ material cannot be waste material, now provides loose guidelines for companies to follow, affecting the environment and the communities around their operations - How the politicians of WV out of touch with what their people want/need (thinking people have ‘hateful’ view of coal); Rockefeller and Byrd trying to protect jobs/industry (as well as their political positions because by supporting industry, they were basically granted admittance to political rings based on the votes from mining workers) Cultural: - The need for breaking traditions established by coal mining – family employment legacies - Communities are feeling encroached upon, not only by industry, but also the growing dependence (poor water supply, health problems due to ash, etc.); 578 extra deaths per year attributed to mining efforts - The industry strikes fear in employees (mountains owned by out of state companies, landowners don’t want development), but there needs to be a new infrastructure established once their jobs are replaced and seen as inferior to avoid further economic strain (whether it’s the factor production of products used in renewable energy efforts, reclamation movements, etc.) - Opposition is very strong, but no efforts to change economy and thinking of towns; such a strong reliance on coal to provide energy, jobs, and economy stimulus [but the only efforts made are to save jobs, not the environment, with new legislative changes (e.g. to saving springs/streams from pollution)] Organizational: - No finished and sustainable recovery efforts done when mining finished; most companies go bankrupt once they’ve finished mining, so there’s no follow-up for the areas they destroyed; natural biodiversity isn’t rebuilt, and invasive/non-native species are seen as the best solution to the problem Media/informational: - Since the coal industry fears that change is coming, they are arguing/opposing this change as much as possible with things like the ‘clean coal’ campaign; carbon capture and sequestration are not solutions 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? - The carnival pictured that was dedicated to families of coal companies; such events are feeble attempts by companies to keep their employees dedicated and thankful for their jobs, making them think that there is nothing wrong with mountaintop removal (they’re just normal people that “have jobs, have families, and go to church”); and it’s not the decision made by the employees working for the companies that are bad, it’s the profit-seeking incentives of the companies and the company’s brass that are bad - $140,000 house depreciated to $12,000 merely due to coal dust and location; it’s a greater financial strain on people who live in the coal mining areas, and they’re trapped because they can’t find enough money or incentive to get away from the problems; leave them stuck in their situation with no way out - 20-30 year reclamation process: why it’s not implements simultaneously as mining is going on (not saying that I support mountaintop removal at all, but for those companies that are, they should have thought through the timeline of their mining and reclamation to ensure that it begins as soon as possible) 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? The workers’ “coal keeps lights on” argument supports the strong dedication to coal usage (strictly based on financial and job security); are these workers even aware of alternative energies (where they could find new jobs in) and the pressure for them, or are they scared to admit their need/influence because they’ll be out of a job? Focusing on not only the energy usage shift of the country, but also the job security for these employees needs to be a hand-in-hand argument. 6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.? - Redevelopment solutions for community infrastructure if mining is stopped; how to ensure job security via alternative jobs (and financial security to dig the poorest towns out of debt from the mining efforts), as well as the development of a new reliable workforce to alleviate the fear of unemployment once the mining companies are obliterated thanks to renewable energy - Political decisions and support by my own state’s political leaders, and how (and if) they’re persuading others to follow in their support or opposition to issues like mountaintop removal (or if they avoid the issues because they want to keep their jobs as elected officials) 7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? -Clearly the film doesn’t persuade those who are currently working for the mountaintop removal companies, nor the people in the communities that already oppose the mining practices; but where it seems it would be the most successful would be on local levels, making the people realize the corruption in their government and hopefully empowering them to pressure those making the decisions for them, making sure that their wants/needs are enacted upon 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? - Political awareness and support for the push for renewable energy - Beginning clean-up efforts once mining has stopped to try and reverse the effects that it is having on the health of people and the environment in the communities [e.g. the close, cover, or removal of slurry ponds (toxic waste sludge); cleaning of polluted water; reclamation efforts to restore native biodiversity] 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? - The film hits hard with the connections made between political security and corporate influence, so making the audience more aware of there they can find out how their political leaders are voting and how they stand on issues is key (even if it starts as a community effort and moves to gain statewide attention/persuasion)
‘Coal Country,’ directed by Mari-Lynn Evans (2009)
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film Coal Country gives its viewers a deeper look behind the scenes at the industry, as well as the devotion it has gained from its employees. It’s a toss up between the personal struggle of employees and those living in the towns where mountaintop removal is prominent and destructive/disruptive. Because coal provides American with over half of its current electricity, the movement of switching to renewable resources strikes fear in the companies, as well as their devoted employees because they don’t want to lose their jobs. It’s a dirty business, and they will go down fighting.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political/legal:
- Changes being made to legislation, allowing mining efforts to get away with more than they did before (e.g. Bush revising ‘buffer zone’ rules); shows the power that the companies can have over political leaders, as well as the disregard for policies in place when situations seem difficult and demand is high
- Joe Lovett won his case of buffer zone protection at the local level, but was overturned at the state level due to public involvement (arguments of keeping peoples jobs and protecting the industry were what made that decision possible); the clean water buffer, in which ‘fill’ material cannot be waste material, now provides loose guidelines for companies to follow, affecting the environment and the communities around their operations
- How the politicians of WV out of touch with what their people want/need (thinking people have ‘hateful’ view of coal); Rockefeller and Byrd trying to protect jobs/industry (as well as their political positions because by supporting industry, they were basically granted admittance to political rings based on the votes from mining workers)
Cultural:
- The need for breaking traditions established by coal mining – family employment legacies
- Communities are feeling encroached upon, not only by industry, but also the growing dependence (poor water supply, health problems due to ash, etc.); 578 extra deaths per year attributed to mining efforts
- The industry strikes fear in employees (mountains owned by out of state companies, landowners don’t want development), but there needs to be a new infrastructure established once their jobs are replaced and seen as inferior to avoid further economic strain (whether it’s the factor production of products used in renewable energy efforts, reclamation movements, etc.)
- Opposition is very strong, but no efforts to change economy and thinking of towns; such a strong reliance on coal to provide energy, jobs, and economy stimulus [but the only efforts made are to save jobs, not the environment, with new legislative changes (e.g. to saving springs/streams from pollution)]
Organizational:
- No finished and sustainable recovery efforts done when mining finished; most companies go bankrupt once they’ve finished mining, so there’s no follow-up for the areas they destroyed; natural biodiversity isn’t rebuilt, and invasive/non-native species are seen as the best solution to the problem
Media/informational:
- Since the coal industry fears that change is coming, they are arguing/opposing this change as much as possible with things like the ‘clean coal’ campaign; carbon capture and sequestration are not solutions
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- The carnival pictured that was dedicated to families of coal companies; such events are feeble attempts by companies to keep their employees dedicated and thankful for their jobs, making them think that there is nothing wrong with mountaintop removal (they’re just normal people that “have jobs, have families, and go to church”); and it’s not the decision made by the employees working for the companies that are bad, it’s the profit-seeking incentives of the companies and the company’s brass that are bad
- $140,000 house depreciated to $12,000 merely due to coal dust and location; it’s a greater financial strain on people who live in the coal mining areas, and they’re trapped because they can’t find enough money or incentive to get away from the problems; leave them stuck in their situation with no way out
- 20-30 year reclamation process: why it’s not implements simultaneously as mining is going on (not saying that I support mountaintop removal at all, but for those companies that are, they should have thought through the timeline of their mining and reclamation to ensure that it begins as soon as possible)
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
The workers’ “coal keeps lights on” argument supports the strong dedication to coal usage (strictly based on financial and job security); are these workers even aware of alternative energies (where they could find new jobs in) and the pressure for them, or are they scared to admit their need/influence because they’ll be out of a job? Focusing on not only the energy usage shift of the country, but also the job security for these employees needs to be a hand-in-hand argument.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
- Redevelopment solutions for community infrastructure if mining is stopped; how to ensure job security via alternative jobs (and financial security to dig the poorest towns out of debt from the mining efforts), as well as the development of a new reliable workforce to alleviate the fear of unemployment once the mining companies are obliterated thanks to renewable energy
- Political decisions and support by my own state’s political leaders, and how (and if) they’re persuading others to follow in their support or opposition to issues like mountaintop removal (or if they avoid the issues because they want to keep their jobs as elected officials)
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
-Clearly the film doesn’t persuade those who are currently working for the mountaintop removal companies, nor the people in the communities that already oppose the mining practices; but where it seems it would be the most successful would be on local levels, making the people realize the corruption in their government and hopefully empowering them to pressure those making the decisions for them, making sure that their wants/needs are enacted upon
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
- Political awareness and support for the push for renewable energy
- Beginning clean-up efforts once mining has stopped to try and reverse the effects that it is having on the health of people and the environment in the communities [e.g. the close, cover, or removal of slurry ponds (toxic waste sludge); cleaning of polluted water; reclamation efforts to restore native biodiversity]
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
- The film hits hard with the connections made between political security and corporate influence, so making the audience more aware of there they can find out how their political leaders are voting and how they stand on issues is key (even if it starts as a community effort and moves to gain statewide attention/persuasion)